Hacker News Reader

Comment by JacksonGariety | Hacker News Reader

This supposes Hume was a great philosopher, and that skepticism is an admirable philosophical position. These are questionable suppositions.

View on HN

If Hume isn't a great philosopher, then it's because the category isn't coherent. Any reasonable understanding of great philosopher would include him. In terms of importance, scope, originality, argumentation, he's among the greats.

If skepticism isn't admirable, I'll have to ask you to behave in a less disreputable manner.

Happily, Hume himself would probably agree with you! The guy was even skeptical of his own skepticism.

Isn't that a lousy move? Doesn't it make the entire theory a tautology that cannot be attacked?

Epoché

if it's tautological then there's no reason to attack it. It's merely uninteresting. If people still think they don't like it than the critique would have to something else.

Gödel showed that everything is tautological if you go low enough, but invoking it against yourself feels like an automatic point for the other side.

I am not invoking it, of course it is uninteresting. In a sport amongst friends with good intent it should be a suggestion to stay within bounds and satisfy the spirit of the game.

The problem of induction remains an outstanding problem. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof. And moral realism remains contentious. There's justification for at least some of Hume's skepticism.

Cites?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com